TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1974 (2) TMI 26
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... order of assessment. The facts are not in dispute and may briefly be set out as hereunder. Petitioner filed his return of income in respect of the assessment year 1963-64 on June 27, 1963. In this return he showed his total income to be Rs. 24,396, the only Source of his income being said to be the share of profit received by him from Messrs. India Trading Corporation, a partnership firm of which the petitioner was a partner. On August 3, 1963, the Income-tax Officer made a provisional assessment under section 141 of the Act and issued a demand notice on such assessment. The records of the assessment proceeding show that the assessee appeared even thereafter on a notice under section 143(2), but no regular assessment was made under sect....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ome and Rs. 1,22,069 as income from other sources for the assessment year 1963-64. Consequent to such assessment the Income-tax Officer issued a notice of demand dated March 12, 1970, demanding payment of the assessed tax of Rs. 1,21,766.75 together with a sum of Rs. 38,988 as interest less a sum of Rs. 5,149.65 being, the tax already paid. Against the aforesaid order of assessment the petitioner preferred a revision petition under section 264 of the Act raising an objection that the entire proceeding for recomputation by the Income-tax Officer is without jurisdiction. According to the petitioner there being no completed assessment earlier made, section 155 could not be taken recourse to. The Additional Commissioner of Income-tax overruled ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of the firm has not been included in the assessment of the partner or, if included, is not correct, the Income-tax Officer may amend the order of assessment of the partner with a view to the inclusion of the share in the assessment or the correction thereof, as the case may be ; and the provisions of section 154 shall, so far as may be, apply thereto, the period of four years specified in sub-section (7) of that section being reckoned from the date of the final order passed in the case of the firm." Plainly this provision authorises amendment of an order of assessment where the assessment had earlier been completed. Therefore, the distinct implication is that completion of the assessment had earlier been made by an order. Here, in the pr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f the period of limitation prescribed. There the act is not done or completed but is forgone. This distinction, in my view, finds support from the following observations of Hidayatullah J. in the Supreme Court decision in the case of Ahmedabad Manufacturing and Calico Printing Co. Ltd. v. S. G. Mehta : "It must be remembered that if the Income-tax Act prescribes, a period during which the tax due in any particular assessment year may be assessed, then on the expiry of that period the department cannot make an assessment. Where no period is prescribed the assessment can be completed at any time but once completed it is final. Once a final assessment has been made, it can only be reopened to rectify a mistake apparent from the record (sect....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 155 the Income-tax Officer not only purported to add the enhanced share of profit but to add a huge amount as income from other sources to the total income of the petitioner. This the Income-tax Officer could not have done in exercise of his powers under section 155 and this is wholly beyond the scope of the authority thereunder. Reference may be made to decisions in the cases of Commissioner of Income-tax v. M. M. Thimmaiah and Commissioner of Income-tax v. Balkishan Bhatia . Incidentally, Mr. Pal wanted to support the order of assessment by contending that the assessment can well be supported as an assessment made in exercise of powers only under section 143 itself. Such is also the view expressed by the learned Additional Commissione....